Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Hubble Stretches Stellar Tape Measure

hubble parallax cepheid variables type ia supernovae nasa

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 10 April 2014 - 05:43 PM

Hubble Stretches Stellar Tape Measure 10 Times Farther into Space


hubblesite.org said:

Even though NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is 24 years old, astronomers are still coming up with imaginative, novel, and groundbreaking new uses for it. The latest is an innovative technique that improves Hubble's observing accuracy to the point where rock-solid distance measurements can be made to Milky Way stars 10 times farther away than ever accomplished before.

To do this, Hubble observations and subsequent analysis were fine-tuned to make angular measurements (needed for estimating distances) that are so fine that if your eyes had a similar capability you could read a car's license plate located as far away as the Moon!

Posted Image Source


"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#2    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:22 PM

Thats brilliant!  I wonder what they will think to do with it in 24 more years.

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#3    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 12 April 2014 - 07:53 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 11 April 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

Thats brilliant!  I wonder what they will think to do with it in 24 more years.

It won't be here in 24 years.

With no space shuttle to undertake servicing missions it will eventually fail. If NASA are lucky they will be able to keep it functioning until 2018 when it's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is launched. It is unlikely that NASA will keep the Hubble in service once the JWST is operating.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#4    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2014 - 08:27 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 12 April 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:



It won't be here in 24 years.

With no space shuttle to undertake servicing missions it will eventually fail. If NASA are lucky they will be able to keep it functioning until 2018 when it's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is launched. It is unlikely that NASA will keep the Hubble in service once the JWST is operating.

Maybe parts could be salvaged,  i wonder if that would be possible to dismantle it even and piece it back to earth... Seems such a waste.

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#5    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 12 April 2014 - 09:34 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 12 April 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:



Maybe parts could be salvaged,  i wonder if that would be possible to dismantle it even and piece it back to earth... Seems such a waste.
How?

There was only one vehicle in history that could do that... the space shuttle. In case you missed it, the space shuttle is no longer in service.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#6    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2014 - 10:39 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 12 April 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:


How?

There was only one vehicle in history that could do that... the space shuttle. In case you missed it, the space shuttle is no longer in service.

How yes, how indeed.  

http://www.rocketcit...ubble-telescope



" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#7    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 12 April 2014 - 11:13 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 12 April 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:



How yes, how indeed.  

http://www.rocketcit...ubble-telescope
And your point is?

Your link, whilst offering an interesting piece of history, makes no mention of any method of salvaging the Hubble with or with out the shuttle. It does not answer the question in any way, shape or form.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 12 April 2014 - 11:13 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#8    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2014 - 11:29 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 12 April 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

And your point is?

Human endeavour.

Quote

Your link, whilst offering an interesting piece of history, makes no mention of any method of salvaging the Hubble with or with out the shuttle. It does not answer the question in any way, shape or form.

This you might find just as interesting.


http://www.deepastro...-die-video.html

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#9    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:11 AM

View Posttaniwha, on 12 April 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Human endeavour.
Human endeavour is a wonderful thing, but your reply is still pointless and meaningless in the context of the question asked.. There is no spacecraft currently in service or planned which is capable of salvaging the Hubble for spare parts. Even if there was, what would be the point. At a quarter of a century old it's components will be mostly obsolete, so you would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to retrieve components that could be built better and more cheaply on Earth.


View Posttaniwha, on 12 April 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

This you might find just as interesting.


http://www.deepastro...-die-video.html
When I said it was interesting I was being polite. I would be more interested if it was more on topic to be honest.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#10    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:53 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 14 April 2014 - 03:11 AM, said:


Human endeavour is a wonderful thing, but your reply is still pointless and meaningless in the context of the question asked.. There is no spacecraft currently in service or planned which is capable of salvaging the Hubble for spare parts. Even if there was, what would be the point. At a quarter of a century old it's components will be mostly obsolete, so you would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to retrieve components that could be built better and more cheaply on Earth.



When I said it was interesting I was being polite. I would be more interested if it was more on topic to be honest.

I find it more interesting when your not so polite.  Did you just not bother at all to watch the video or read the transcript?  It is far from science fiction what nasa has in store for the hubbles re entry to earth.  

The point is that there is facillity to robotically move its orbit.  Why not move it into a lunar orbit,  keep it in the lunar shadow, perhaps and inch out more of its lifes capabilities? Cost wise it may not make much sense, but even so there are people who would welcome its safe retrieval to earth if only for sentimental value.

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#11    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 16 April 2014 - 08:49 AM

View Posttaniwha, on 14 April 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:


The point is that there is facillity to robotically move its orbit.  Why not move it into a lunar orbit,  keep it in the lunar shadow, perhaps and inch out more of its lifes capabilities? Cost wise it may not make much sense, but even so there are people who would welcome its safe retrieval to earth if only for sentimental value.
So we can add orbital mechanics to the ever increasing list of scientific concepts you don't understand.

I will try and explain this simply so that hopefully you can understand this.

Using robotic means to de-orbit Hubble requires reducing Hubble's velocity by a very small amount, orbiting at a velocity of about 28,000 kph kph a reduction of just 300 kph is sufficient. This drops the lowest point of Hubble's orbit into the upper atmosphere.

The upper atmosphere, unlike space, is dense enough to cause friction. This friction decelerates Hubble further and heats it up in the process, causing it to burn up.

So all this robotic system is doing is decelerating Hubble by 300 kph, the atmosphere does the rest.

Now what you want to do is send it to the Moon. The reason you want to send Hubble to the Moon makes no logical sense, but neither does anything else you've said, so I'll simply ignore that.

To send a spacecraft to the Moon you need to accelerate it to a sufficient velocity to break free of Earth's gravity. This velocity is 40,320 kph. Hubble is orbiting at 28,000 kph, so you would need to accelerate by over 12,000 kph.

Are you beginning to see the problem yet?

Accelerating Hubble to escape velocity means making a change in it's velocity forty times greater than de-orbiting it. This would require more fuel... much more fuel. This means we need a much more massive robotic vehicle. But a much more massive vehicle requires even more fuel to move it's own mass.

But it gets worse.

If we just launch Hubble in the direction of the Moon it will simply pass around it and head back towards Earth. This is known as a free return trajectory. Once it gets to the moon we need to decelerate it to lunar orbital velocity, which is about 3,700 kph. So this requires yet more fuel.

So why not send it to the Moon instead of de-orbiting it(apart from it being a totally pointless exercise)? Because instead of using a small robotic vehicle to do the job you would need a bloody enormous, prohibitively expensive one.

So having explained all this to you (although I'm guessing that I've wasted my time) I come back to what you originally said, which was:

View Posttaniwha, on 12 April 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

Maybe parts could be salvaged,  i wonder if that would be possible to dismantle it even and piece it back to earth... Seems such a waste.

And my initial question, which you have dodged with totally irrelevant links:

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 12 April 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

How?

There was only one vehicle in history that could do that... the space shuttle. In case you missed it, the space shuttle is no longer in service.
To be honest, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a sensible or relevant answer.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 16 April 2014 - 08:51 AM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#12    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2014 - 09:32 AM

A better solution in that case would be to let the hubble burn and send a totally modern telescope to the moon.

Hopefully future telescopes could also be part shuttle, capable of re entry and re launching.  Better to wait and see where the money takes us.

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#13    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 16 April 2014 - 05:06 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 16 April 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

A better solution in that case would be to let the hubble burn and send a totally modern telescope to the moon.

Hopefully future telescopes could also be part shuttle, capable of re entry and re launching.  Better to wait and see where the money takes us.

Why would we want to bring back space telescopes and re-launch them? We don't even re-use old telescopes already here on Earth! Far more efficient to just build new telescopes and launch them.


#14    Sundew

Sundew

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:An island by the sea.

  • Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectos Nunc

Posted 16 April 2014 - 05:24 PM

I wonder if the tech has improved enough to send a much smaller version of the Hubble into orbit to continue the amazing discoveries? I assume that the limiting factor is still the size of the mirror, I've always understood bigger is better here for gathering very low light intensities. I know that with computer imaging they are getting quite good at removing or limiting atmospheric interference with ground based telescopes, but it's hard to beat the vacuum of space for clarity. It will be a very sad day when Hubble crashes to Earth.


#15    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 16 April 2014 - 06:25 PM

View PostSundew, on 16 April 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

I wonder if the tech has improved enough to send a much smaller version of the Hubble into orbit to continue the amazing discoveries? I assume that the limiting factor is still the size of the mirror, I've always understood bigger is better here for gathering very low light intensities. I know that with computer imaging they are getting quite good at removing or limiting atmospheric interference with ground based telescopes, but it's hard to beat the vacuum of space for clarity. It will be a very sad day when Hubble crashes to Earth.

The tech has improved, and we are sending up the James Webb Space telescope which will replace the Hubble. It is not a visible light telescope, but still it will reveal amazing things.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users